Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1953–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2018This Court rejected his claim that he was entitled to a second preliminary hearing on the specific prior felony convictions which would be used to enhance his potential punishment at trial, citing the fact that "the appellant was put on notice that he was to be charged as a second and subsequent offender, and subject to enhanced punishment pursuant to 21 O.S.1981, § 51(B), at his preliminary hearing by virtue of the three convictions then alleged." Thomas , 1984 OK CR 19 at ¶ 13, 675 P.2d at 1020 . ¶3 In declining to quash Thompson's Supplemental Information or to remand his case for further p 2018This Court rejected his claim that he was entitled to a second preliminary hearing on the specific prior felony convictions which would be used to enhance his potential punishment at trial, citing the fact that "the appellant was put on notice that he was to be charged as a second and subsequent offender, and subject to enhanced punishment pursuant to 21 O.S.1981, § 51(B), at his preliminary hearing by virtue of the three convictions then alleged." Thomas , 1984 OK CR 19 at ¶ 13, 675 P.2d at 1020 . ¶3 In declining to quash Thompson's Supplemental Information or to remand his case for further p | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rapp v. State
green
1 sentence1992In Starr v. State, 479 P.2d 628 (Okl.Cr. 1971), relying on Rapp v. State, 413 P.2d 915 (Okl.Cr. 1966) we determined that any error arising from the lack of a preliminary hearing on second and subsequent charges was waived by the defendant's entry of a plea to the information and his proceeding to trial without timely offering any objections to the Information. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Starr v. State
green
1 sentence1992In Starr v. State, 479 P.2d 628 (Okl.Cr. 1971), relying on Rapp v. State, 413 P.2d 915 (Okl.Cr. 1966) we determined that any error arising from the lack of a preliminary hearing on second and subsequent charges was waived by the defendant's entry of a plea to the information and his proceeding to trial without timely offering any objections to the Information. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence1984Carter v. State, 292 P.2d 435 (Okl.Cr.1956). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Warren v. State
neutral
1 sentence1953This undoubtedly is ordinarily the rule, Warren v. State, 6 Okla. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.